Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

[SavedByTheLord]

Source?

I have to ask because you have consistently shown you do not understand what articles say.
Though it is extremely rare you present a source.

i wonder if your flat refusal is because you know I am asking for a credible source and you know your source is not credible?

If you know the truth and understand science and math at a high school level, and have studied this rubbish, then you can refute all the evolution junk.

 

[McBell]

If you know the truth and understand science and math at a high school level, and have studied this rubbish, then you can refute all the evolution junk.

So why is it you have consistently failed at it?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

So why is it you have consistently failed at it?

I have refuted all of the evolution stuff.

 

[McBell]

I have refuted all of the evolution stuff.

Your attempt to refute evolution has been a colossally epic fail.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Your attempt to refute evolution has been a colossally epic fail.

Thanks. That must mean you cannot refute any as you have no real answer to the origin of anything.

 

[McBell]

Thanks. That must mean you cannot refute any as you have no real answer to the origin of anything.

Since you have been so thoroughly refuted by numerous others, there is no need for me to add anything.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Since you have been so thoroughly refuted by numerous others, there is no need for me to add anything.

There is not enough helium in the earth’s atmosphere to support an old atmosphere. Why?

 

[McBell]

There is not enough helium in the earth’s atmosphere to support an old atmosphere. Why?

I do not know that there is not enough helium in the Earths atmosphere to support the atmosphere.
The fact that the atmosphere exists seems to point that you are wrong.
Perhaps I am missing some part of your question you have left out?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I do not know that there is not enough helium in the Earths atmosphere to support the atmosphere.
The fact that the atmosphere exists seems to point that you are wrong.
Perhaps I am missing some part of your question you have left out?

There is not enough helium in the earth’s atmosphere to support an old atmosphere. Why?
input into the atmosphere rates exceed those that remove it from the atmosphere.

 

[McBell]

There is not enough helium in the earth’s atmosphere to support an old atmosphere. Why?
input into the atmosphere rates exceed those that remove it from the atmosphere.

Am I to take your blatant avoidance as you admitting you do not know?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Am I to take your blatant avoidance as you admitting you do not know?

I just told you

 

[Valjean]

Not a good explanation at all.
In fact the idea that water and sediment bury these trees is just proof of the flood. And they span multiple rock layers that should have been hardened rock that were laid down millions of years earlier.

Big fail.

Floods leave clear stratigraphic evidence. There is no such evidence for a worldwide flood, in fact, there is overwhelming evidence against it.

 

[Valjean]

When asked for the origin of anything, the evolutionist says - I do not know.

When you ask about the Big Bang, yes, Nobody understands much about the BB.
Ask a question about biology or evolution instead. you'll get an answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is not enough helium in the earth’s atmosphere to support an old atmosphere. Why?
input into the atmosphere rates exceed those that remove it from the atmosphere.

Helium leaves the atmosphere too. High energy particles along with its low mass allow it to be stripped from the atmosphere. I do not know what your source for that claim is, but I can tell that the one creationist source that I am aware of has been thoroughly debunked.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have refuted all of the evolution stuff.

No. No you haven't.

You do realize that you actually have to do something more than just post lists of questions and declare yourself the winner to actually refute a scientific theory. Right?

 

[Valjean]

Thanks. That must mean you cannot refute any as you have no real answer to the origin of anything.

There you go again with your origins straw man.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is not enough helium in the earth’s atmosphere to support an old atmosphere. Why?
input into the atmosphere rates exceed those that remove it from the atmosphere.

Morris again. Why do people keep using his pseudoscience?

This has been refuted. Morris and Cook didn't take into account all of the mechanisms of helium escape from the atmosphere.

 

[gnostic]

Here is simple challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

I have read some of the threads you started, and i have come to conclusions that you have never studied either science or history.

I don’t know what qualifications & experiences you have, outside of high school (that if you have any uni or college qualifications), they are definitely not in science or in history. So like @Subduction Zone said, you are in no position to judge what is or what isn’t “assumption”. And I don’t think you would know what “evidence” are, even if they punch you repeatedly on the nose.

Plus, just about every believers of some deities, or of some religions, of some scripture/traditions/myths, they “believe” whatever they “believe” in, to be true. Those beliefs are just assumptions, as are each person’s faith, more assumptions.

Anytime, anyone believe in something, they would assume.

The big differences between religion and science…is that one relies on faith, and the other relies on observable & testable evidence.

Faith is what matters to all Abrahamic religions, faith in the belief in a supreme being, a deity, faith in the religion, which would include beliefs in the scriptures & teachings, even if such beliefs (eg God’s omnipotence & omniscience & infallibility, creation, miracles, resurrection, etc), they (beliefs) are all defying nature, hence the faiths in beliefs are of the supernatural.

The supernatural don’t exist except in wild imagination and faulty beliefs.

Faith is all about one’s personal conviction, it is where one would trust the belief to be true, eve though it isn’t possible. So faith itself is just assumption.

That’s what required in any religion. It required a person and everyone who believe in and follow whatever religion: FAITH, not evidence.

Have you ever considered that your faith to be ”wrong”?

After all, you are human, you can err, you’re not infallible, nor are you inerrant.

Science, particularly Natural Sciences, or any experimental science, they required observable evidence.

Evidence are something “physical”, physical enough that it can be observed, or detected, physical enough to be measured or tested.

Faith in a god, or faiths in scriptures or miracles or resurrection, heaven & hell, these are assumptions that you be them to be true, including your belief that the Earth or the Universe is only 6000 years old.

There are no needs to show the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old, because you wouldn’t understand any evidence that support the science behind it. All I need to do present anything that show you that the Earth isn’t 6000 years old.

For instances, Jericho and Uruk (Uruk is known in Hebrew as Erech, Genesis 10) and Nineveh.

In many places around the world, people have the habits in a times, to construct their homes and settlements (villages, towns or cities) on the same site as those older ones. So there are layers of permanent settlements, one on top of the other, so the deeper archaeologists dig, the older of each successive settlements.

In both Uruk and Nineveh, the last settlements on top, have been abandoned and in ruins for some times, but the bottom settlements - the oldest settlements - of each, show evidence that Uruk is dated to 5000 BCE, or 7000 years old, while the Nineveh is dated to 6000 BCE, or 8000 years old. I don’t know about Nineveh, but with Uruk or Erech, there are 18 layers to Uruk, with Uruk XVIII being the oldest.

But Jericho is different as the city is still populated with people, and have grown many times larger since after the Late Middle Ages. But there is area in Jericho that are much older than the modern city, a place called Tell es-Sultan. They included layers of the city that existed in the Iron Age (c 1050 - 1 BCE), Bronze Age (3100 - c 2000 BCE) and right near the beginning of the Neolithic period (12,000 - c 3100 BCE), with Tell es-Sultan have as many as 20 layers.

So the oldest permanent settlement in Tell es-Sultan (Jericho) is about 11,600 years old or 9600 BCE, where homes were built within Neolithic village. But this layer grew over time, that sun-dried clay bricks home were constructed in circular floor plan, dated from 8600 to 8000 BCE, they had constructed fortified stone walls, 3.6 metres high, plus a 8 metre high stone tower. The fortification were most likely constructed to prevent flood water from the Jordan, rather than defensive purposes. Such fortifications were the first in the Neolithic period and you won’t these types of walled cities until the Bronze Age, 5000 years later.

These 3 cities alone, debunked your claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

And there are older human cultures, older than the Neolithic farming cultures.

Throughout the Middle Paleolithic (300,000 to 50,000 years ago) and Upper Paleolithic (50,000 to 12,000 years ago), the Earth was undergoing through alternating periods of warm (interglacial) & cold (glacial) periods, where glacial period ice sheets covered large regions in the northern hemisphere, as well as any high mountain ranges, and where the ice sheets don't melt, so there are no warmer seasons for tens of thousands of years. Look up Quaternary Glaciation, to read about the ice age.

And even though there are no ice sheets in even larger regions, the Earth was cooler, and gone through periods of long droughts, so humans could stay in one place for very longs, so nomadic lifestyle of hunter-and-gathering cultures exist for 288,000 years. Here, stone tool and hunting weapons were more cruder made than those of the Neolithic period.

There are just too evidence that debunked your belief in 6000 years old, some are man-made, while most are completely natural.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I have read .

of course you keep making the same mistake over and over just assuming there is no God.
I have proven other than that,

What was the first living thing?
How complex was it?
The more complex, the more impossible it is to have come into being?
The more primitive, the more impossible is its survival or its ability to have an offspring.

 

[Subduction Zone]

of course you keep making the same mistake over and over just assuming there is no God.
I have proven other than that,

What was the first living thing?
How complex was it?
The more complex, the more impossible it is to have come into being?
The more primitive, the more impossible is its survival or its ability to have an offspring.

Who has assumed that there is no God? You do realize that some of the people that you are debating with are theists, don't you? They believe in God. Some of the people that you are arguing with are Christians. They not only believe in God, they believe in the Christian God. And it does not appear that even the atheist are assuming that there is no God.

The way that you abuse that word makes me thing that you do not understand the concept.